'6e’ Clash: What’s Next For IndiGo And Mahindra?

Amid the IndiGo-Mahindra ‘6e' dispute, trademark attorneys believe that Mahindra's case is weak and that a settlement between the two companies would be mutually beneficial.

Mahindra Electric Automobile Ltd. has issued a statement taking note of IndiGo's concerns and saying it is working on an amicable resolution of the matter, which would be the best solution, said Brijesh, partner at Remfry & Sagar.

Sudarshan Singh Shekhawat, co-founder at Shekhawat Law echoed this. Assuming IndiGo is able to establish goodwill over 6E, Mahindra will have difficulty on balance of convenience, as it only has to remove the external labels on their cars and change marketing materials with perhaps no modifications in the vehicle itself, he said.

Earlier this week, InterGlobe Aviation Ltd., which operates IndiGo, took Mahindra Electric Automobile to the Delhi High Court over the use of ‘6e' in the name of its latest electric SUV.

IndiGo has several registrations for its 6E formative marks in various trademark classes. However, it does not have any registrations in Class 12, which is the class for which Mahindra has applied.

Mahindra's mark ‘BE 6e' has been accepted by the trademark office, the class which deals with vehicles and apparatus for the transport of people or goods by land, air or water. If registered, Mahindra will be permitted to use the mark for a wide range of motor vehicles and related components.

Trademark Law And The Paramountcy Of Usage

Under trademark law, usage of a mark is more important than getting that mark registered. There are certain marks that have protection under the law, even when they don't have explicit registration.

Courts have time and again favoured prior uses of marks, even when they didn't have explicit registrations.

For instance, the top court protected an Indian spare parts manufacturer by the name of Prius Auto Industries against the Japanese automaker Toyota, after the latter got its trademark registered in various countries for its vehicle ‘Prius'. The court had clearly said that Prius Auto was the prior user of the mark and had gathered significant reputation in India.

In another case before the apex court, it upheld the rights of a prior user of the "Iruttukadai Halwa" mark against a later registered user who tried to use a similarly worded mark “Tirunelveli Iruttukadai Halwa”.

However, if the two parties do not wish to settle the case, then IndiGo will have to establish that Mahindra is trying to impinge upon its goodwill on the '6e' mark. It will have to establish that its ‘6e' transcends beyond the airline category that the cause for confusion in the layperson's eyes is almost obvious, said Vaishali Mittal, partner at Anand & Anand.

Shekhawat remarked that the strongest possible argument that Mahindra can take will be that of consumer sensibility. They can try and make their case on the ground that the class of consumers that are going to buy the Mahindra EV are well informed and therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion between IndiGo's ‘6e' and its BE 6e, he said.

Brijesh seconded Shekhawat. Mahindra may try to argue that when a person goes to buy its BE 6e EV, it is very unlikely that they will confuse it with IndiGo airline, he said.

However, he added that the court will have to see if the alleged infringing trademark is resulting in brand dilution, a case of trade association, or confusion in the market regarding the mark.